[角色] 你是一名拥有10年投资银行从业经验的资深研究分析师，专门负责上市公司、行业研究。你擅长解读公司财报、行业动态、宏观市场，发现潜在的投资机会和风险。 [任务] 你需要仔细研读一份上市公司或者行业研究的电话会议记录，请阅读全文，一步一步思考，总结全文列出关键要点，不要错过任何信息，包括： * 纪要涉及的行业或者公司 * 纪要提到的核心观点和论据 * 其他重要但是可能被忽略的内容 如果没有相关内容，请跳过这一部分，进行其他的部分。 总结时要全面、详细、尽可能覆盖全部的内容、不遗漏重点,并根据上述方面对内容进行分组。 要引用原文数字数据和百分比变化,注意单位换算(billion=十亿,million=百万,thousand=千)。 [注意事项] 1) 使用中文,不要出现句号 2) 采用markdown格式 3) 不使用第一人称,以"公司"、"行业"代替 4) 只输出关于公司和行业的内容 5) 在每一个关键点后用[序号]形式引用原文档id 6) 一个[序号]只应该包含一个数字，不能包含多个，如果多个就用[序号][序号]分开写，不要写成 [序号-序号] 7) 每个关键要点后边的 [序号] 不要超过 3 个 Content: --------- <doc id='1'>Company Participants Adam Steensberg - President & CEO Prakhar Agrawal - Managing Director Adam Steensberg People dropping off the GLP-1s. And we think we have with PetriniType an alternative product that can give patients the weight loss they're looking for, but in a more pleasant weight loss experience. And we really think that, you know, the dynamics we're looking at today will only be exaggerated further as we see alternatives coming out because then the conversations will change from can you tolerate a therapy to will you accept it? If there is an alternative, what will patients accept? And we at least speculate that even more patients will not accept being on a GLP-one with all the side effects you often see with these molecules.</doc> <doc id='2'>Prakhar Agrawal Got it, and obviously we've seen a lot of activity in the amylin space recently, so there was cabrizema data at ADA, Lilly presented some data for their amylin drug which is with a cabrizema, it's a little bit early stage, Metsarah has an Amylin. So with all those competition coming in, which everyone probably predicted would happen, how do you sort of highlight some of petrolinitis differentiation in this increasing incompetent space? Space?</doc> <doc id='3'>Adam Steensberg Yeah. It is really good to start to see more clinical data readouts in this space of the amylin. And I would say with all the data that we have seen coming out this year, that confirms to us that we have what still looks to be the best in class opportunity. When you look at the totality of data, it is still important when you look at these molecules that you do not only focus on, let's say, efficacy and then disregard safety at the same. So you need to balance always what is what is the efficacy you're looking for and what is the safety profile that is our tolerability profile that comes along that efficacy.</doc> <doc id='4'>And when we look at the totality of of that experience, we still think that the Treinside by far looks to have the strongest profile among these clinical assets. If you take the quinolantide, which is of course the one that is furthest developed, where Novo's main focus so far has been Carcurisema, that's a combination product. That's not an alternative. And then but what we were excited about, considering that data set from their phase three program was actually the arm where they also tested monotherapy of cadrelioside, where they actually showed 12% weight loss with almost placebo like side effects. And we think we have a product that will give more weight loss due to the specific features of our molecules that really reconfirm our belief that Petrides has the potential to really lead in this new category and also that the category can actually become the largest category</doc> <doc id='5'>Prakhar Agrawal Okay. And maybe can you help us understand the specific differentiation versus gagrelentide? Is it the half life, potency or something else that you can do with petrolentide? Adam Steensberg Yeah. So a lot of these there's of course a lot lot of, you can say, scientific rigor behind choosing these molecules. And if you think about coagrelin type by Novo Nordisk and then petraintide by us, the way it interacts with the amylin receptors and the calitronin receptors, we believe are quite similar. And that's why it's really reassuring not only the efficacy signal from cadherin type, but also the safety signal from cadherin type. So we have a very balanced approach and we use also human amylin as the backbone.</doc> <doc id='6'>Other companies have chosen different paths and I think we are starting to see now that maybe some of those decisions will then carry out carry some side effects and maybe even some quite significant safety signals, which so far it looks like we have avoided with the decisions we have made. Compared to caquilinide, we have a significant upside in the fact that we our molecule is stable and neutral pH, and what we believe that translate into is that we don't see the same degree of injection site reactions as has seen with ekaglutide, we have not seen</doc> <doc id='7'>the same degree of immunogenicity. And then we have a much higher bioavailability, so we get more drug to the receptor when we inject.</doc> <doc id='8'>Prakhar Agrawal Okay, got it. And you announced a deal with Roche earlier in the year. I thought it was great economics. But maybe strategically, why did you feel Roche was the right partner to maximize the value of Betterment Day? Adam Steensberg Yes.</doc> <doc id='9'>So we after we got our Phase 1b data last summer last year, we started a very kind of structured process to identify the right pharma partner for us to realize our vision of becoming a key player in obesity, which was extremely important for us, this was a very competitive process. I had been on quite a few last cap CEOs to ultimately choose us. What was extremely important for us was the strong commitment they have made to actually become a leader in this space. We didn't just wanna team up with somebody who just thought it would be hard to have an obesity asset. We actually, it's a big effort to go in and lead in this space and that was with with us.</doc> <doc id='10'>We found a company who convinced us that they wanna lead in this. We were impressed with how they presented their manufacturing plans because ultimately, you cannot just tap into existing manufacturing capacity. Yes, you can do that, but then you will not get the most efficient. And they convinced us that the plans they have by building new fit for purpose manufacturing capacity would be a huge edge for us as we launch these molecules together. And then of course, lastly, we actually managed to get 50% shared economics on also the combination products with their c c d three eighty eight, which is a GLP one GLP molecule.</doc> <doc id='11'>So of course, that added to the value opportunity. So so, yes, we are now sharing the the profit fifty fifty with us, but we actually also got a new value opportunity in, and at the same time, a lot of good economics. So those were probably the three main reasons.</doc> <doc id='12'>Prakhar Agrawal Yes. And on the manufacturing investments, we saw some announcements from Roche as well. I think 700,000,000 investment in the North Carolina plant. Like how much of that capacity is going to be focused on petrolinta, if you can speak about that? Adam Steensberg Yes, I cannot share the specifics, but just I can share that we feel very confident that HUS is making the right investments in this investments needed to support the launch without any, you can say, shortage. And it's perhaps also an aspect of this agreement which has been overlooked a little bit that while we will share all development cost and also the future profit, we, Zealand, do not have to finance any manufacturing investments. That would be us that is responsible for financing all these investments, which is of course also a lot of dollars short term at least for us that we save.</doc> <doc id='13'>Prakhar Agrawal Got it. And when you were running the process and like what was attractive, what better than tied to Roche, what were the some of the two or three attributes that was really interesting? Was it a differentiated mechanism? Was it on the safety tolerability side? If you can just lay out the reasons that Roche will tolerate, we have to be involved in the ambulance space.</doc> <doc id='14'>Adam Steensberg Yes. I think they will, of course, have to speak for themselves either ultimately were so excited as I would say most of their peers in the industry was as well. So but I would but for me, it's a logical consequence of looking at the current market dynamics. With the GLP-1s, where we have two established brands, of course, it's going to be hugely difficult to come in with another GLP-one and start to lead if you already have very established brands. You're You're going to have high rebate walls, you're going to have a lot of prescribing experience with</doc> <doc id='15'>existing molecules, and you're also going to fight against ten, twenty years of data. So but coming in with a new modality, coming in with an alternative, then suddenly you have an opportunity to lead in a new category instead of trying to eat your way into something that is very established.</doc> <doc id='16'>That is a much more attractive value proposition. Also, you think about the launch years, it's it's a much more compelling opportunity to launch with a new category because you will be you can say the first alternative for people who do not know where else to go, if you launch and with a similar mode of action, then you will have to convince somebody why you should take that molecule rather than a new in a in a very existing and well known molecular entity. So this opportunity to lead in a new category, I think, is what was appealing to many of the companies we spoke to.</doc> <doc id='17'>Prakhar Agrawal Got it. Makes sense. Maybe onto the some of the clinical data, you have the ongoing Phase 2b that will read out the forty two weeks will read out next year. Just clear on what are you hoping to see maybe starting with efficacy? Adam Steensberg Yes. So what we hope to see is a molecule that can provide patients with a GLP-one like weight loss, and that is in the mid teens, so fifteen percent to twenty percent what we have seen. And then with a much more benign tolerability profile, we are already very confident in the tolerability profile because we have sixteen week data. We have also data from Novo Nordisk, which shows that it's almost placebo like experience that you have when you get a patrinetide as compared to when you get the GLP-1s. So and on the efficacy side, we achieved 8.6% weight loss over sixteen weeks.</doc> <doc id='18'>And those models would suggest that we can easily achieve the weight loss we're looking for. What I think is super important as we continue to mature our view on the future BT market is to maybe that go a little bit of that, what is the number? This is about a profile of a drug. Most patients, if you ask them, are looking for a 10% to 20% weight loss. And we and and thus, we we have to get away from this weight loss Olympics.</doc> <doc id='19'>We need to get into talking about what is the profile of the drug, which drugs can give patients that weight loss they're looking for, but in a more pleasant experience. And then importantly, which is the big big big miss of the current therapies is how do we manage to get patients to stay in therapy. The reason that we have so low volumes of patients on treatment is because they stopped taking the GLP-1s far, far too early today. And we think we can change that with enamelin.</doc> <doc id='20'>Prakhar Agrawal Yes. And I think that's an important point because I think people under appreciate the duration of therapy for Alnylam drug. So like what are you based on your research, what's the sort of the state time for GLP-1s and how much further can you improve with an amylin therapy even as monotherapy option? Adam Steensberg Yes, but I think it has actually not changed a lot this daytime on a GLP-1s. And we know, I mean, from the launch years, I mean that within the one already in one once we have thirty percent who drops off and probably within a year is less than than fifty percent who are still on on therapy. By those who leaves, the majority are actually people who say it's because I cannot tolerate the drug. Of course, there are other reasons as well, but the major极是 because they cannot tolerate it. And there's actually a big dilemma here because if you only achieve a weight loss and you don't manage to maintain it, we actually you could actually be worse off.</doc> <doc id='21'>So it is so important we start to think about how do we get people to stay on therapy. And we all know that an obese person is very motivated to lose weight. Once you have achieved the weight loss, you become less motivated, and that also means that you will accept less side effects. And that's where we think amylin will come in and be something you can actually have that you can also enjoy being on when you have achieved your 极是 loss because it has this feature of making people feel full faster rather than losing their appetite. So it's actually also beyond the classical tolerability issues</doc> <doc id='22'>Prakhar Agrawal</doc> <极是 id='23'>And on the safety tolerability side, obviously, we have been comparing it with semaglutide, but don't you think the market is moving now more closer to tirzepatide, which has really good safety tolerability as well, so how would you compare ambulance versus let's say dual agonist, like Adam Steensberg a GLP, GLP agonist which has good safety? Yeah, but I politely probably have to disagree with your statement there. In my book, think the safety and tolerability profiles between Vigovi and and and Zepbound are quite similar. You may data at least suggest that you could get a higher weight loss on on Zepbound, but again, as we discussed before, if you balance things net net, you still have all the side effects with the GLP one TIP class that we have also seen with the GLP one class. I think another kind of fact underscoring this is that while the clinical data we always discuss for these molecules are data generated with the highest doses,极是 what was the weight loss you achieved with, let's say, fifteen milligrams of of of of Z bound, then the real world evidence suggests that very, few patients ever get to these doses.</doc> <doc id='24'>They end at much lower doses. I actually believe that the average dose being used real world for Zepbound is around seven and a half milligram, which is a very low dose. So they don't actually experience the weight loss that the clinical data suggest they can do. And then you might ask yourself, why is that? Why do they not get to those numbers? And we think a lot of that has to do with the tolerability profile. We used to talk a lot about just vomiting and nausea, but I think we need to discuss diarrhea in particular because these are side effects that tend to stick and not be able to titrate yourself out, especially when we start to think about the new classes of all GLP-1极是 where in my book, at least looks to be even worse.</doc> <doc id='25'>Prakhar Agrawal Got it. And you disclosed some pooled baselines during the last earnings call. But maybe just a broader question on obesity trials. We are seeing a lot of discontinuations in the obesity trials, especially in the placebo arm as well. We saw this with Lilly's orfagriplone data. Viking had a little readout that had极是 lot of disc conditions as well. What are you doing to mitigate this risk? Because this is a forty two week trial as well.</doc> <doc id='26'>Adam Steensberg Yes. But I mean, we, of course, don't have the data yet, but but I also hear other companies who have not seen the same issue. So I I don't know. Before we see the actual data, it's it's actually difficult to say what the real reasons are behind those discontinuations. Of course, there is this observation that if people don't achieve a weight loss in a placebo group, they could be less motivated to stay in the study.</极是> <doc id='27'>That could also, again, coming back to ofroglipin, why you had more discontinuations than average on on even on active drug because people did not achieve the weight loss they were looking for. So I think we need to see the individual data before we can start to draw conclusions.</doc> <doc id='28'>Prakhar Agrawal Anything you can comment on the pool discrimination rates in the ongoing trial? Adam Steensberg No. I mean, again, we try to keep a high level of data integrity on our clinical studies and not be too, you can say, to introduce any risks. So we like to keep things blinded until we have the data.</doc> <doc id='29'>Prakhar Agrawal Okay. And once you have the forty two weeks, I know there will be an interim readout this year to progress for to start the regulatory discussions around the Phase III plan. But what could a Phase III development plan look like? And a follow-up to that, like does Roche plan to run a CV outcomes trial for Amlens? Adam Steens

公司及行业 * Zealand Pharma及其合作伙伴Roche专注于开发新一代肥胖治疗药物 特别是基于amylin（胰淀素）机制的petrelintide（彼得林肽）[1][2][3] * 行业竞争激烈 主要参与者包括Novo Nordisk（诺和诺德）和Eli Lilly（礼来） 其GLP-1类药物（如semaglutide司美格鲁肽和tirzepatide替尔泊肽）主导当前市场[12][20][38] * 行业关注焦点从单纯追求减肥疗效转向平衡疗效与安全耐受性 并重视患者对治疗的长期坚持[2][16][18] 核心产品：petrelintide (彼得林肽) **差异化优势与科学依据** * 公司认为petrelintide是同类最佳（best-in-class）的amylin受体激动剂 拥有最强的综合（疗效与安全性）表现[2][3] * 与Novo Nordisk的amylin候选药物cagrilintide（卡格列肽）相比：两者作用机制相似 均以人胰淀素为骨架 但petrelintide在稳定性、生物利用度和安全性方面更具优势[4][5] * petrelintide分子在中性pH下稳定 这转化为更少的注射部位反应、更低的免疫原性以及更高的生物利用度（意味着更多药物能到达受体）[5] * 引用cagrilintide单药治疗数据显示了12%的减重效果和近乎安慰剂般的副作用 公司相信petrelintide能凭借其分子特性实现更优的减重效果[3] **临床开发与预期** * 正在进行Phase 2b试验 42周数据预计明年读出 此前16周数据已显示8.6%的减重效果 模型预测最终能达到15%-20%的GLP-1类中段减重效果[14][15] * 安全性是核心优势 现有16周数据和Novo的数据均支持其拥有近乎安慰剂般的耐受性体验[14] * Phase 3临床试验计划将采用经典的肥胖项目设计 包括心血管结局（CVOT）试验 以支持其成为基础疗法的愿景[27][28] **市场定位与愿景** * 目标不是与现有GLP-1药物直接争夺用户 而是为因副作用停药或无法耐受的患者提供一个更优的替代方案 并旨在成为一线疗法[12][28][29] * 核心价值主张：提供患者寻求的（10%-20%）减重效果 但拥有更良好的治疗体验 从而解决当前GLP-1疗法患者停药率高（一年内超50%停药 主要因无法耐受）的痛点[15][16][17][18] * 认为amylin类别有潜力成为最大的肥胖治疗药物类别[3] 合作伙伴关系：Roche（罗氏） **合作逻辑与战略价值** * 选择Roche作为合作伙伴因其承诺成为肥胖领域的领导者 而非仅仅拥有一个资产[8] * Roche计划投资建设新的、专用于此的制造产能（提及7亿美元投资北卡罗来纳州工厂） 这将为产品上市提供巨大优势 避免出现短缺[9][11] * Zealand无需承担任何制造投资成本 由Roche负责融资 为Zealand节省了大量短期资金[11] * 合作经济条款优厚：Zealand获得美国及欧洲市场50%的利润分成 并且对与Roche的GLP-1/GIP双靶点药物CT388组成的联合疗法也享有50%的经济收益[9][10][30] **商业化规划** * 这是一项真正的合作伙伴关系 Zealand拥有平等话语权并计划参与关键市场（如美国）的商业化推广 最高可承担50%的推广工作[30][31] * 具体参与程度将与Roche讨论后决定 公司具有最大灵活性[31][32] 竞争格局与市场观点 **对现有GLP-1类药物的看法** * 认为GLP-1类药物（包括tirzepatide）普遍存在耐受性问题（如呕吐、恶心、特别是腹泻） 这些副作用持久且难以通过剂量滴定消除 导致患者实际使用剂量远低于临床试验中的最高剂量（如Zepbound平均剂量约7.5mg） 因此实际减重效果低于临床数据[20][21] * 强调市场需要从“减重竞赛”转向讨论药物的综合 profile：哪些药能在提供所需减重效果的同时 带来更愉悦的体验[15][16] **对新进入者的看法** * 认为凭借新的作用机制（amylin）开创一个新类别 比以相同机制（如GLP-1）去挑战已建立强大品牌和市场地位（高返利墙、多年处方经验和数据）的巨头更具吸引力[12][13] * 预测除非具有真正的临床差异化优势 否则再推出含GLP-1机制的药物将极其困难[43] 其他重要管线资产 **cerdulatinib (由Boehringer Ingelheim开发)** * 一种GLP-1/glucagon（胰高血糖素）双靶点激动剂 Phase II数据显现在减重效果和耐受性上与GLP-1/GIP类药物相似 但在管理NASH（非酒精性脂肪性肝炎）方面潜力突出[38][39][40] * Boehringer正在开展一项规模巨大的Phase 3 NASH项目（涉及3500名患者 包括肝硬化患者） 显示其对该产品前景的信心[40] * 有望凭借在NASH领域的显著疗效 将其定位在独特的市场空间 避免陷入GLP-1类的价格战[42][43] **dapiglutide** * 一种差异化的GLP-1分子 同时具有GLP-2活性 可能更好地控制炎症[44] * 开发策略将聚焦于超越减重 重点开发针对肥胖且伴有特定炎症相关共病的患者群体 计划今年启动Phase II研究[44][45] 公司战略与展望 * 公司资本状况强劲 雄心勃勃 目标是利用其在肥胖管理领域25年的经验、领先的下一代分子和资本优势 推动公司进入下一个加速成长阶段[47][48] * 计划于12月11日举办R&D日活动 分享对未来创新的思考 并介绍新的科学官 为未来半年密集的催化剂（包括cerdulatinib的Phase 3数据和petrelintide的Phase 2数据）设定预期[46]